G.R. No. 242834 - RAMON E. MIRANDILLA, RANIL D. ATULI, AND EDWIN D. ATULI, VS. JOSE CALMA DEVELOPMENT CORP. AND JOSE GREGORIO ANTONIO C. CALMA, JR..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the LA ordered JCDC to pay petitioners their separation pay, backwages, and service incentive leave pay, as well as ten percent (10%) attorney's fees. [27] As for Jose Gregorio, he was absolved from liability since there was no showing that any of the grounds to pierce the veil of JCDC s corporate fiction so as to hold him solidarity liable, exists. [28] The LA held that petitioners were regular employees, considering that JCDC's evidence failed to show that the former were hired for a specific project or undertaking, which completion or termination had been determined at the time of their engagement. Moreover, the LA observed that while Ramon was assigned to several different project sites, JCDC failed to demonstrate that termination reports were filed after the completion of each project. [29] As to Ranil and Edwin, the list of permanently terminated workers submitted to the DOLE showed that they were terminated due to "closure/retrenchment" and not due to "project completion." Thus, for failure to prove the validity of petitioners' dismissal due to any just or authorized cause, the LA found JCDC liable for illegal dismissal. [30] However, it denied the other money claims for lack of merit. [31] Aggrieved, respondents appealed [32] to the NLRC. The NLRC Ruling In a Resolution [33] dated June 23, 2017, the NLRC granted the appeal and modified the LA Decision by deleting the award of backwages, separation pay, and attorney's fees. [34] The NLRC ruled that petitioners were project employees, considering that: (a) petitioners' work as finishing carpenters indicated the specific undertaking for which they were engaged; (b) petitioners were free to offer their services as carpenters to other employers while awaiting engagement after the end of each particular project; and (c) the submission to the DOLE of establishment termination reports showed that petitioners were project employees. [35] Aside from finding that Ramon was a project employee, it added that he could have been terminated for the series of infractions he committed. On the other hand, it found that Ranil and Edwin no longer had any cause of action against respondents after they executed their respective quitclaims and received their last pay after the completion of their project. [36] Dissatisfied, petitioners moved for reconsideration [37] but the same was denied in a Resolution [38] dated August 22, 2017. Hence, petitioners elevated the matter to the CA via a petition for certiorari . [39] The CA Ruling In a Decision [40] dated February 28, 2018, the CA dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC. [41] The CA observed that as finishing carpenters, petitioners' nature of work clearly indicated the specific undertaking for which they were hired and the specific phase of work that their services were needed. Moreover, it observed that JCDC complied with the submission requirement to the DOLE by filing an Establishment Employment Repor